The US ITC said it will investigate if Apple has nicked Motorola technology in its iPhones, iPods, iMacs and tablets.

Motorola is asking for import bans on just about every iOS device, including the Mac OS X computer, claiming Apple's iMessage technology infringes a Motorola patent. On the whole, Motorola names seven patents, all of which are allegedly infringed upon by some or all of these iOS devices: the iPod Touch, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, and all three generations of the iPad. Presumably, the iPhone 5 will be complained about later.

This patent, filed for in 2001 and issued in 2006, covers a "System for providing continuity between messaging clients and method therefor." Motorola said that Apple's iMessage client for iOS and Mac OS X violates a claim in that patent covering "A plurality of messaging clients within a messaging communication system for providing continuity between the plurality of messaging clients comprising: a first messaging client, for establishing a first communication connection including a plurality of client data with a message server; and a second messaging client for receiving the plurality of client data from the first messaging client and for establishing a second communication connection including the plurality of client data with the message server."

iMessage provides a common messaging client between iOS and Mac OS X devices, with users being able to "start a messaging conversation on an OS X Mountain Lion device such as a MacBook Air, and continue the conversation on another device running the 'iMessage' messaging client on iOS 5 software, such as an iPhone 4S." This idea did not spring fully formed from the head of Steve Jobs but was already invented by Motorola, the ITC was told.

Motorola said that iMessage on the MacBook Air "establishes a first communication connection via WiFi or LAN or otherwise resulting in the exchange of data with Apple's message server." The iMessage messaging client on the iPhone 4S can establish a second communication via WiFi or 3G that results in the receipt of data from Apple's message server."

The ITC announcement that it will open an investigation into "certain Apple iPhones, iPods, iPads, and Apple personal computers” is a sign that the ITC thinks the claim might have legs. It does not mean that it thinks that it does yet.

A US judge has dismissed Apple's injunction claim against Motorola, although he's left them an option of appeal.

The final 38-page ruling reads:"Apple is complaining that Motorola's phones as a whole ripped off the iPhone as a whole (...) But Motorola's desire to sell products that compete with the iPhone is a separate harm - and a perfectly legal one - from any harm caused by patent infringement." The judge argued that Apple failed to prove that it lost market share, brand recognition or customer goodwill to Motorola.

Analysts aren't surprised at the outcome. Namely, the judge was inclined to dismiss the case and had cancelled a jury trial earlier.

Patent consultant Florian Mueller said he is sure that the case will be appealed to the Federal Circuit. He added that Apple "didn't do its homework in terms of expert reports and witnesses" to get something out of the case.

Seeing as how nobody is interested in backing down, we're likely to hear more news on this front.

Apple lost yet another battle in its war to ban Samsung’s tablets over patent infringement.

A Dutch appellate court dismissed on Tuesday Apple’s appeal and thus confirmed the lower court’s ruling. You may recall that the latter court ruled that Galaxy Tab 10.1 devices are not copies of Apple’s iPad.

Since the company seems terribly interested in exchanging its main business for a more lawsuit oriented one, we’d be brave enough to pitch them an idea. Namely, we’re toying with the notion of the iSue – a gadget that analyzes the market in realtime and automatically proposes lawsuits against anyone who may overthrow you in the next decade.

A new patent troll has appeared on the scene claiming that anyone who runs a wireless Internet has to pay it loads of money. US Innovatio IP Ventures is suing every outfit offers wireless Internet to customers, filing six infringement lawsuits this month against individual branches of some of the country’s largest hotel chains.

So far the outfit has been making claims against coffee shops and department stores. It should not be long before it starts demanding money, with legal menaces, against American home connections.

Matthew McAndrews, a partner at Chicago-based law firm Niro, Haller & Niro, and the lead litigator for Innovatio in its infringement lawsuits said that he is not thinking of doing that “at this stage.” Since March, he has filed 13 infringement suits.

At the moment the outfit demands a one-time lump sum licensing payment between $2,300 and $5,000 from each of the several hundred defendants targeted in its lawsuits, McAndrews said. Some of the defendants have already written cheques to make the case go away.

Most of the patents Innovatio is asserting in its lawsuits were invented in the 1990s and early 2000s, by a bloke called Robert Meier and the late Ronald Mahany. They worked for outfits acquired by Broadcom. The patents changed owners several times but ended up in Innovatio’s hands on February 28, about one week before Innovatio began asserting them in litigation.

However it might not go all Innovatio’s way. Its first batch of law suits triggered retaliation from wireless communications giants Motorola and Cisco. In May, Motorola and Cisco moaned to a court about the patents and asked it to rule that their products don’t infringe, and declare Innovatio’s patents invalid.

Microsoft has started collecting Android royalties from Samsung, but judging by the latest statement from Microsoft’s general counsel Brad Smith, it won’t be the last.

Smith said that Microsoft has not seen a single Android device that does not infringe its patents. He added that the company will look back and see this as ”the day that we reached a tipping point in the market”. Funny, because we seem to have falsely believed that innovation should be something you look back on.

Google reacted quickly and called this the same tactic it has seen from Microsoft. Namely, the company said that once Microsoft fails in the smartphone market, they resort to extortion and hindering innovation. This prompted Microsoft’s Head of Communications Frank Shaw to twitter what seems to be a mature enough comment - “Waaaah”.

Jobs' Mob has come up with a novel method of claiming that it invented everything. In amongst the ITC court papers in the recent HTC versus Apple spat is an argument which claims that Andy Rubin got inspiration for Android framework while working at Apple, hence infringing an Apple API patent.

This means that Android started at Apple, just by virtue of the fact that one of its former employees happened to have invented it. If this logic was applied, it would mean that it did not matter where an employee worked in their life all their inventions would be legally owned by the first company they worked for.

Apple told the ITC that Android and Rubin's relevant background does not start with his work at General Magic or Danger in the mid-1990s. Rubin began his career at Apple in the early 1990s and worked as a low-level engineer specifically reporting to the inventors of the '263 [realtime API] patent at the exact time their invention was being conceived and developed. It is therefore no wonder that the infringing Android platform used the claimed subsystem approach of the '263 patent that allows for flexibility of design and enables the platform to be "highly customizable and expandable".

Now if people said that Apple invented Android, they would put them away. But Apple is claiming that Rubin's superiors at Apple were the inventors of that realtime API patent and he worked for them at the very time they made that invention. If the ITC buys this argument then the whole patent system will collapse as many people in the tech industry go on to invent things for other companies. Most people are expected to have learnt something from working in a company, and that is what job experience is all about. However Apple is is one of the few companies that believes it owns its employee's ideas long after they have left the company.

While Big Content claims that it is taking action against file sharers to protect the poor struggling musicians, it seems that this is not the case.

A judge has given the go-ahead to a $50-million settlement in a copyright infringement lawsuit brought against four Canadian record labels for unpaid royalties. Judge George Strathy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved the settlement of the proposed class action in Toronto on Monday.

Craig Northey, a founding member of the Odds, which had a number of hit singles in the 1990s including “Someone Who’s Cool” and “Make You Mad” was the lead plaintiff. He took defendants, Sony Music Entertainment Canada, EMI Music Canada, Universal Music Canada and Warner Music Canada to court.

While you might never heard of Northey, the music studios are the same people who make regular appearances in court claiming that file sharers were stealing from musicians. It seems that Big Content think that it is its job to steal from musicians.

In this case they admit no liability. But agreed to the settlement in exchange for a full release of the plaintiffs’ claims for use of work listed on what are known in the Canadian recording industry as “pending lists.” These lists, accumulated over many years, contain works for which no licence was obtained and no compensation paid.

Xoom Corp. from California sued Motorola for trademark infringement over the name of Motorola’s recently launched tablet.

Xoom Corp. specializes in money transfers and it has filed a trademark suit with the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The company argues that the name will cause confusion among the company’s customers and holds Motorola responsible for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, false advertising, unfair business practices etc.

Apparently, the company registered the xoom.com domain in 2003 and registered the Xoom trademark in December 2004. By launching its Xoom tablet, Motorola has, as the filing claims, created a false association between its product and Xoom Corp. The company requests “temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction”. Furthermore, it wants Motorola to stop using Xoom name and, of course, it seeks damages.

We must admit that for a company that sues another for “unfair business practices”, they were pretty silent these past couple of months when even birds on the trees started chirping Xoom tablet name. That doesn't sound like fair business practice, but hey - what's common sense have to do with anything these days.

Motorola has filed a complaint with the US ITC against Microsoft, claiming that the Xbox 360 violated a number of the company’s patents.

The move was described as somewhat of a response to the earlier Microsoft’s lawsuit, which accused Motorola of excessive and discriminatory royalties. Motorola now claims Microsoft infringed a number of their patents in its Xbox 360.

Motorola asks for a halt of Xbox 360 sales until the matter is cleared up. The US ITC said investigation is expected to conclude early in 2011.